On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 19:35 +0100, Liam Proven wrote: > 2009/7/23 John Thng <[email protected]>: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Liam Proven <[email protected]> wrote:
<elisions> > > Arch, Zen and others ... > > I confess I am not familiar with either. Zen Linux appears to be dead, > last updated in 2005; its homepage is gone. Do you perhaps mean > Zenwalk? > > I have heard of both Arch & Zenwalk but not tried either, I must > admit. My impression is that both were aimed at 686-level machines - > Pentium Pro/II/III and higher - and were something of "geeks' distros" > for those who like to "get under the hood" and twiddle settings. > Certainly that's my impression of Arch. > I like and use Arch. "Officially" supported binaries are compiled and optimized for i686 & amd64 aka x86-64. Community support of binaries for other processors, such as i586, exists in various states of functionality. It has a "BSD-like" configuration paradigm that involves editing /etc/rc.conf. It's basic installation is pretty minimal - networked and CLI is about it. I use it as a "low-end" server on a Thinkpad T23 (PIII 1.4 GHz/512 MB RAM/100 Mbit ethernet laptop from 2001). It performs very well. This is well above the specs Liam is proposing as a desirable target for a light weight desktop system. As a test, I have installed it on desktop system with similar specs and with LXDE as the desktop. Again, it is responsive and functional. Arch is unabashedly aimed at the knowledgeable, and it goes without saying that the Arch community likes it that way. Neophytes and the man page-averse should look elsewhere. Regards C David Rigby _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-desktop More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
